[C8]

I have read in numerous places that the costs of manufacturing renewables keeps going down- especially solar. Many times I have read that, if this trend continues, solar will be cost equal to fossil fuels in 5 years.

Is this true? Isn't it easier to get bigger cost cuts in the beginning and then it gets harder to cut costs later? The first problems to be solved are the easier ones and represent the low hanging fruit.

OTOH it seems like nano-tech and other new materials could really lead to a breakthrough in solar prices. Every experiment has not been tried yet and renewables will keep receiving the benefits of new science. Solar cells don't have to capture more energy to be viable- they just need be made more cheaply.

Of course fossil fuels will rise in price and this will probably make them more expensive than renewables even if no new breakthroughs occur. (I realize renewables can't solve the liquid fuels problem- I'm thinking electricity here- as in electric trains)

When do you expect renewables to become cheaper than fossil fuels (if ever)?

thanks

[Keith_McClary]

I just ran across this chart:

Renewables 15% by 2035. If they were cheaper we would use more.

[C8]

well that's depressing- but why won't prices come down more?

[evilgenius]

Solar is really interesting. I was just reading some comments to a news story about declining government subsidies where the people were saying they were involved in solar. They touted it because the price has come down so much over the past few years that they could make money installing panels. Some of the comments said that it didn't matter if subsidies went away, solar was coming down so fast in price that soon it would be competitive on its own.

Also, the other day I was reading a story about new blades manufactured at the Vestas plant in Colorado. The Vestas plant has laid off a bunch of its workers, down to a thousand left. The article said it was interesting, and good news for the business, that new blade tech, new tech period, was coming out of the the plant. This particular tech was so that the turbines could turn at a slower rate and still make electricity.

In both cases man's ability to react by using the scientific method to the challenges put before him has brought advancement. Much like how microprocessors needed a paradigm to develop within; first it was be faster, then it was more cores, always it was more action per square whatever of silicon, the alt energy people seem to have shed the onerous task of defining their tech and gotten to the point of concentrating on efficiency, making improvements there. Perhaps at some point in the future they will be able to iteratively approach the nature of their industries and go beyond efficiency, like moving from going faster to having more cores, but that remains to be seen. Right now we don't even know if that will be necessary in order to replace fossil fuels.

The big plus for alt energy is that its major output is electricity. Electricity goes hand in hand with the general trend of man over many centuries now toward personal autonomy. Electricity is very important to the communications revolution we are currently undergoing. C8 mentioned trains. We naturally gravitate toward thinking about trains for good reasons. The biggest stumbling block with personal autonomy and electricity is poor battery performance. Also there is a problem with electricity transportation over long distances. Those problems may be more down to how we choose to perceive our world and how we interact with it, like how train tracks are as far apart as Roman cart wheels, than because electricity won't inherently work with personal autonomy except through batteries or that electricity has to be generated in huge plant-like production facilities.

The jury is still out, but it looks good for alt energy.

[C8]

OK- so evilgenius is saying removing subsidies may be a good thing as it will force a "do or die" innovation process by renewable energy companies that may make renewables competitive. Yet pstarr is saying the change over to renewables is a job so big that it is really going to take the government to step in and lead change.

Its clear the US government, controlled by fossil fuel money, is not going to step in. So the only real option is the private sector. Maybe we will never have many electric cars, since this would take a government supported infrastructure investment. But maybe solar will get cheap enough for homes and businesses and this will reduce the overall use of fossil fuels.

Of course, fossil fuel companies could just use their money/government power to increase subsidies for themselves to be cost competitive or make rules limiting renewables. if that turns out to be the case then the US really is doomed to become a second or third world nation in 40 years as other countries invest in the transition and we are stuck with ever more expensive fossil fuels.

The only political solution I see is that fossil fuel companies take over renewable companies, are guaranteed a profit either way, then use tax money to build their infrastructure.

[Lore]

Take away our ability to consume in the US and we become nothing more then cartoon characters masquerading as real people. Other economies will soon look elsewhere. Although, I firmly believe the United States is most likely last in the line of the modern capitlist experiment.

I have to agree, at this point, there is no simple cost benifit solution that we can arrive at with the same density of energy as in oil which can be found in alternatives.

[Plantagenet]

Did folks see the new data on Chinese solar cells?

China drove the price down on solar cells to the point that manufacturers in the USA were driven out of business. Now it turns out the Chinese solar cells are crap. Just like Chinese paneling, milk, and other products, the Chinese photovoltaics are made with shoddy materials and are failing long before the 25 years promised at purchase. As many as 5-20% of Chinese solar cells are failing within a couple of years of being installed. The solar biz is too new to know how many will last 5 years, or 10 years, much less the 25 years promised and on which the purported "energy savings" are based.

If folks have to rip out their cheap Chinese solar cells and replace them after only a few years, then the economics of installing and generating solar energy cells at the household level start to really stink.


Cheap Chinese solar cells installed by many US homeowners over the last few years are starting to fail---tests show failure rates of up to 20% in just the first few years.

[Lore]

Too late, US pols have already turned s deft ear to talk about getting another dog in that fight.

[Plantagenet]

US pols .....

US pols had nothing to do with it.

It was the US environmental community who promoted the idea that renewables should be cheaper than fossil fuels (see the title of this topic), and the US solar industry and the US consumer who took them seriously and took their message to heart and then tried to save a few bucks by buying and installing the cheapest possible Chinese solar cells----which now are failing at an alarming rate.


Cheap Chinese solar cells turn out to fail at an alarming rate

[Plantagenet]

I thought all our problems were Obama's fault.

The world is more complicated than that, Peter.

[Newbie Wants Info]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXx02iMsDqI

[Newbie Wants Info]

It's not just concentrated solar, it combines wind, biomass, hydro, etc in a network spread across northern Africa, the middle east and Europe, taking advantage of a massive amount of renewable energy sources. The only thing standing in the way of affordable, environmentally friendly energy network are the "peoples" in the region who fight like dumb animals over religion and territory.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Solar is really interesting. I was just reading some comments to a news story about declining government subsidies where the people were saying they were involved in solar. They touted it because the price has come down so much over the past few years that they could make money installing panels. Some of the comments said that it didn't matter if subsidies went away, solar was coming down so fast in price that soon it would be competitive on its own.

Even if solar panels become FREE, and very durable, you still have significant costs associated with Solar. The panels have to be properly installed by folks who know what they are doing. The installation has to be maintained, like any outside structure subject to weather/nature. This is far from free.

This reminds me of the cost curve with computer storage. At some point, hard drives, memory sticks, etc. converge to a relatively low price. But they do NOT go anywhere near zero, as there are basic structures like cases, power supplies, electronics, and costs like distribution and profits which guarantee a significant baseline price.

So, for example, hard drives may approach $50 in time, and memory sticks eventually approach $5-ish, but they don't go to zero. Eventually the low capacities simply become obsolete (why would I buy a 2 GIG drive for $50 when I can buy a 2 Terabyte drive (1000x the storage) for a little over twice that if I shop?

There's also the reliability / real-world risk issue. Hybrid (not plug-in) cars are just becoming mainstream enough that regular folks are getting comfortable with considering buying them IF the economics makes sense. Solar will have to hit a certain critical mass before people are comfortable with that as well. And to me, durability/lifespan is still a real question.

...

Now, if government wanted to actually do something practical and positive for the infrastructure long term, having healthy unemployed people trained to properly install solar panels, and offering large subsidies to adopters of sufficient size (home or business) would seem to make a lot of sense. (Why not pay them to install such panels for willing home-owners or businesses, instead of having them sit around collecting unemployment or welfare of some sort -- why their job skills and prospects atrophy?)

But of course we can't do that. We have this fossil fuel industry (and the military that backs it) to support, after all. Oh, and all the social programs. Can't stop expanding those at every opportunity either, less someone dub that "unfair".

As a society we have to make priorities, and then we have to live with the consequences.

[Newbie Wants Info]

But of course we can't do that. We have this fossil fuel industry (and the military that backs it) to support, after all

Interesting, you blame the fossil fuel "industry" and the weak and passive military that supposedly "backs" it, yet earlier in your post you seemed to be on to the real problem, which is that people just don't like to be told what to do. They want their Democrat social programs; bubba doesn't want to drive a hybrid because he thinks it makes him a "fag," the public doesn't want solar because the public is just allergic to any rapid change in lifestyle, because they are oh-so-delicate. Why blame "industry" and the "military" when it is really just ordinary people's faults?